G. K. Chesterton (29 May 1874 – 14 June 1936)
The Problem of Progressivism: Theological Aspect
Historiography teaches us that every era has its distinct characteristics and ideals. If we were to classify our time, the key word for many would undoubtedly be progress. This isn’t entirely incorrect. Progress has been an obsession, an ideal, and the slogan of the spirit of our times since the Enlightenment and the cultural revolution. It’s seen as an imperative, a doctrine with no alternative. Being considered progressive is the highest compliment, as it implies an open, visionary, sophisticated, and contemporary mind. Chesterton argues that this is the main concern and dilemma of modern man: Am I modern enough? This is quite different from other periods. For example, medieval people never questioned whether they were sufficiently medieval ‒ it simply wasn’t their concern, according to Chesterton.
I don’t believe the idea of progress is problematic when it pertains to reforms and positive changes, which are always desirable for all of us. The issue, however, lies in the direction of this progress.
G. K. Chesterton, born 150 years ago, left us with incredibly profound and prophetic thoughts and critiques. In his typical British humorous way, he said that progressivism is like a traffic policeman shouting “Move on!” without telling us where to go, assuming the direction ahead is always right. But when you lose your way, there’s nothing more progressive than turning back. According to him, real progress would mean changing the world according to our vision, not constantly changing the vision itself. Thus, progressivism often aims to escape the past in an unknown and often wrong direction. Ironically, constant change of vision is seen as an advantage, giving a sense of superiority. This is reflected historically.
Ideologies have their roots in modernity. In the 18th century, French revolutionaries aimed to replace Christianity with the cult of reason and science in the name of progress. Instead, they ended up with a regime of terror and irrationality. Since then, the concept of Logos has been replaced by various ideologies ‒ from the cult of reason to the cult of feelings, from the cult of the individual, collectivism, race, and state. History, especially the last century, shows these cults to be among the most terrifying. Man, once seen as a being created in the image of God, has been reduced to a random creature without clear purpose.
According to Chesterton, the root of the problem is that the crisis we face stems from wrong perceptions, primarily the distortion of the anthropological vision of man and human nature ‒ the denial of the concept of original sin and human weakness. This idea, ironically, isn’t new at all; it’s actually a very old Christian heresy called Pelagianism, which denied original sin and man’s need for God’s grace for redemption. Therefore, based on these premises, progressives and materialists hold optimistic views, valuing human nature as inherently good and changeable. It is this idea that paved the way for utopianism and the creation of the New Man ‒ an experiment that historically failed.
The free market, capitalism, and neoliberalism are three inseparable dogmatic concepts of today’s world that have become a kind of postmodern orthodoxy. Thus, there is often talk of the “end of ideology” because these concepts are almost universally accepted by both the mainstream left and right. This is perhaps most evident in Western countries, where mainstream party differences are almost merely declarative. Practically, neoliberal model capitalism is not questioned. Given the breadth of this topic, I will only touch on a few aspects.
The Problem of the Free Market: The Vision of Neoliberalism
On the surface, “free market” doesn’t sound problematic at all. Why would anyone be against the free exchange of goods? The problem with the modern, especially postmodern, free market is paradoxical because it is essentially not very “free,” or, better said, the concept of freedom in this context is selective and relative. Why? Because the liberal concept of freedom is separated from truth, virtue, and the traditional values of a given community; the main imperative is profit: “Nothing personal, just business.” Naturally, this can be interpreted as a consequence of separating the concept of virtue from politics, which inevitably leads to the atomization of society and the erosion of values. And this is not a conspiracy but an ideological principle of neoliberalism. According to neoliberal thinkers like Milton Friedman, this is the liberation of the individual from the community and the dangers of collectivism: “Society has no values. People have values.”
According to Chesterton, this is the essential problem of the modern capitalist: he defends nothing other than capitalism. The concept of such freedom ‒ as he writes in The Outline of Sanity ‒ lacks moral guidance because it relies on individual conscience rather than universal moral principles.
Obviously, this experiment has radical consequences. Political philosopher Michael Sandel calls it a “market society.” The market economy is a tool, an instrument, but a market society is a lifestyle, the radical embodiment of market thinking about everything. In a way, I would say: reductio ad mercatum where everything is for sale, from “likes” on social media, pornography, to “womb rentals” … In short, according to this model, man is reduced to a consumer.
This radical reduction is the embodiment of postmodernism and relativism, paradoxically accepted by many conservatives from the 1980s until today. It must be said that the intention was good because, at that time, the threat of communism and totalitarianism was serious, and it seemed that a coalition of liberals and conservatives was a necessary and pragmatic solution. To some extent, one could say they were successful in that direction, but not in what they promised; collectivist totalitarianism was avoided economically, but it was replaced by a new form of totalitarianism. The state monopoly may have been minimized economically, but its place was taken by big business, which mimics the power of the state and dominates the market, stifling competition and small businesses. Chesterton warned us that too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few…
The Path Forward
The current situation is far from ideal, but as long as we have faith and accept the truth, there is no reason to despair. What Chesterton proposes may not sound conventional, but it is necessary to return to virtue, that is, the virtue of politics. We need to remember the etymology of the ancient Greek word politics, which denotes issues or matters related to the city (gr. polis) ‒ that is, issues belonging to the citizens. Similar to this definition is the Roman political concept of the republic (lat. res publica), meaning public matter, but also the common good. Starting from this, the great philosopher Aristotle defines politics as the goal of achieving the common good. Therefore, he sees politics as inseparable from virtue. Thus, the path of development and progress cannot be achieved without considering historical experience ‒ tradition ‒ which philosopher Roger Scruton defines as wisdom, guidelines inherited from our ancestors and the past. Thus, the positive aspect of tradition: as history and as a teacher. On the other hand, this tradition should be as defined by Pope Benedict XVI: a river that leads us to truth ‒ Logos. For true freedom is only in truth (John 8:32).
This article was initially a speech for the Croatian Chesterton Festival (2024)
Albert Bikaj
Albert Bikaj is a political scientist and the Faith and Philosophy research lead at the Orthodox Conservatives Group. He holds a Master’s degree in Medieval History with a focus on the history of political thought and is Chairman of the Conservative Youth of Europe. He has written for the European Conservative, the Research Institute for Politics and Government, and The New Liturgical Movement, and has recently translated Roger Scruton’s “The Need for Nations” and Isaiah Berlin’s “The Hedgehog and the Fox” into Albanian.